spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ May 21 2010, 12:39 AM) Can someone explain why all the original factions had bullet dispersion?
Yes, Tkela did a long time ago. I'll do my best to remember what he said (post was on the old forums sadly and I may misremembering and it may not even have been Tkela but hey ho).
Dispersion places hits in a proability cone (note, probability, not random). This means that a perfect player with 0 lag will land say 90% of hits, but if there is lag and the target isn't quite where it appears to be to the player they will still land some hits unless the lag is very high and the difference between apparent and true positions is greater than the probability cone. This will also benefit a bad player with good lag but that's an acceptable compromise as at least you're notpunishing a player experiencing lag.
Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ May 20 2010, 09:49 PM) The dispersion was also decided upon for the original models, the ones without perfect hitboxes. But you appear to be suggesting that dispersion only helps hit in lag. This seems strange to me, since dispersion will also cause you to miss. Lag only compounds that factor both ways. I would argue the same is true for the hitbox.
But the problem is that, if the hitbox doesn't match the model, a less experienced player with perfect aim will hit less than a vet with poor aim because the vet knows what to aim at (open space). The game should be about skill, you already have lag compensation in bullet dispersion and don't IMO need a belt and braces solution to that problem. Making hitboxes that don't conform to the models supports knowledge over skill.
Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ May 20 2010, 09:49 PM) I'm not saying that the few ships with silly oversized or off-shape hitboxes (like the Rix fig you mentioned) are a good thing, but the slightly out of shape ones (most of the current ships in my opinion) don't strike me as a big issue. If I line up my shots to hit the ship around its middle, some are going to miss from dispersion and lag, and a few extra will hit because of dispersion and the hitbox. Its not a great system but given how current gameplay works its quite functional.
I'm arguing with you Rav, because here I see complaining that the ship with the conforming hitbox is too hard to hit, and then people telling me all ships should have conforming hitboxes.
If the ship is hard to hit then perhaps it's the the ship, not the hitbox that's at fault? Scaling the ship may well help a lot but if the model is fundamentally flawed for use in Allegiance then those options will only take you so far.
Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ May 20 2010, 09:49 PM) So you're suggesting that Sniper, Util, Dis, and all of the TF weapons should have dispersion or AOE added? Not sarcastic here, just curious as its one thats come up before. I'd be interested to know how you think we'd rebalance the SF weapons in particular since they'd have to get closer to do the same damage.
TF weapons should have dispersal yes. They've always been far less effective for people with higher lag than the normal equivalents, and conversely more effective for those with low lag. Again, I think the game should be about skill, not proximity to the server.
There's a special case for dis, galv and util. They are mostly shot at either stationary or low accel targets (bases, drones (which your client should know the exact location of at all times) and capships). Lag shouldn't come into play with these targets at all simply because if they do lagjump it's by such a small amount that you're still hitting them. Sniper is an interesting case because it breaks all the rules. It does seem to work (although sniping scouts in a bomb run can be a massive pain, but at least you have hunters). I'd be tempted to not fix it because it seems to not be broken (high projectile speed helps possibly?) or add a small amount of dispersal and maybe up the firing rate (and reduce energy and damage accordingly). obviously with gat level dispersal at sniper range you'd never hit a damn thing.
Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ May 20 2010, 09:49 PM) As I mentioned above, the irony of this sort of statement is that we've had far more complaints/issues with these new conforming hitboxes than we have with the more traditional ones. Bear in mind that this is based off the responses I see in this forum. If you all think that the IC and Rix ints, the belters figs, Giga scouts, etc. are all terribly unbalanced and need to be fixed then speak up and I'll be forced to consider otherwise. Hell, even the new OH ships were supposedly made that way and aside from the flat profile on the int there don't appear to have been any major complaints about those.
Here's a quick lesson in human nature: people complain when stuff changes. You get complaints about the new stuff because it's new, not because it's particularly more of a problem than the things that people are used to. IMO that shouldn't be a reason not ot examine the option of changing something that's been left alone for the last decade.
Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ May 20 2010, 09:49 PM) And as for the workload, it seems silly to me because you'd achieve the exact same effect with all of this perfect-hitbox stuff that you do now. You're changing the hitboxes to conform (which makes them harder to hit) and then making them bigger as balance demands (which makes them as easy/hard to hit as they are now). That said if somebody were to magically PM me tomorrow with a set of new perfect hitboxes for every ship in Allegiance, I don't think I'd turn it down. Would be fun hearing all the complaints about the new ships being too hard to hit though, especially since it would take us several releases to get them anywhere near the level they are now. It'd also be funny seeing these huge ships flying around afterwards, especially if it began to interfere with docking at small doors.
You seem to think that conforming hitboxes would require a substantial scaling up of the model to acheive the same footprint as the current, broken, hitboxes. Do you have any evidence for that or is it just supposition?
Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ May 20 2010, 09:57 PM) Oh the irony. You're the one putting words into mouths here. You suggested making every hitbox perfect and I gave you an equally retarded suggestion to illustrate your stupidity. I'm sorry I ever thought you could understand such a point Adept, I really should've just berated you right away instead of two posts later.
Xere, you need to think how you respond to people if you're acting as the mouthpiece for the CC team. Being overly aggressive to a perfectly reasonable request that broken stuff gets fixed just makes you look like an imbecile. Attacking without supporting what you're saying doesn't help. Maybe you gain kudos with the dribbling morons in the peanut gallery but you do your team a great disfavour. You replied to me civilly despite me asking for the same thing as Adept in a more provocative way.
Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ May 20 2010, 09:49 PM) Right, so you don't care if a weapon is programmed to randomly hit or miss, but you also don't want the ship to get randomly hit. Read that again a few times to make sure you understand what I mean. In fact maybe you should contact an adult to help you with this one, its tricky.
Try to understand what random means and how it's not what happens with dispersion in alleg.
Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ May 20 2010, 09:49 PM) Despite the fact that the conforming hitbox is pretty much the reason for this. Maybe psych was right and we should scale every ship up to the point where anyone can hit them. At least then you'd stop complaining about how hard they are to hit.
Maybe you were right and we should give every ship a massive spherical hitbox to the point where anyone can hit them? Because that seems to be what you're arguing for.
